PTAB Explains how to Determine Whether a Reference Qualifies as a “Printed Publication” Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Sep 7, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Apple filed a petition for inter partes review of a patent owned by VirnetX directed to secure methods for communicating over the Internet. Apple alleged that claims of VirnetX’s patent were obvious over a prior art patent in combination with a document identified as RFC 2401. VirnetX disputed whether RFC 2401 qualified as a printed publication as of the date identified on the face of the document and whether it was publicly accessible as of that date.

Apple relied on an expert declaration to explain what an RFC is and why RFCs meet the definition of printed publications. Apple’s expert testified that RFCs are documents that are prepared and distributed by the Internet Engineering Task Force, and each RFC relates to an Internet standards-related specification. Apple’s expert also opined that each RFC contains a date on its cover page that reflects the date that the document was released to the public.

In challenging RFC 2401, VirnetX attempted to analogize the document to a thesis with a date stamped on a cover page and a notation that the thesis was “approved for public release; distribution unlimited.” Prior PTAB decisions had found that, for such a document, absent any further indication that the document was actually released publicly, distributed to the public, or entered into a publicly accessible electronic database, the public accessibility of the document had not been established.

The PTAB credited Apple’s expert’s testimony establishing that RFCs are publicly disseminated and contain publication dates printed on their covers. The PTAB noted that RFC 2401 requested suggestions and improvements for an Internet standards protocol, “precisely the type of document whose very purpose is public disclosure,” and that the document was disseminated to persons of ordinary skill interested in computer networking security, which indicated that the document was “publically accessible.” In view of this evidence, Apple established that RFC 2401 qualified as a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2015-00812, Final Written Decision, Paper No. 43 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016).

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

Ineffective Retroactive Amendment of Patent Assignment Dooms $20 Million Damages Verdict

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

IPR Estoppel Under § 315(e)(1) Does Not Apply to Ongoing Ex Parte Reexamination

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

Delaware District Court Clarifies That Enhanced Damages Are a Form of Relief, Not a Claim That Can Be Dismissed on a Motion under Rule 12(b)(6)

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus Petition Challenging the PTO Director’s Application of ‘Settled Expectations’ in IPR Proceedings

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.

PTAB Explains how to Determine Whether a Reference Qualifies as a “Printed Publication” Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries